Ashwani Kumar and others Vs State of Hp and others

For the petitioners: Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur and Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocates General, for respondents-State.

¶10

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

¶11

By way of present petition, the petitioners have laid challenge to order dated 26.07.2010, whereby their claim to count the training period for the purpose of grant of benefit of increments has been rejected.

¶12

Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioners were selected for undergoing the Junior Basic Training for the session 1996-1998. As per the condition laid down in the letter (Annexure P-2), the petitioners were required to fill in a bond for five years to

¶13

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

2

¶15

2026:HHC:12488

¶16

serve in the Education Department. Further the respondents were duty bound to issue appointment letters to the trainee within six months of the receipt of the intimation letter. The petitioners had filled up the form at the time of joining the training and after completion of the training in the month of December, 1998, they were awarded the certificates. The petitioners thereafter were offered the appointment to the post of Junior Basis Teacher (for short ‘JBT’) in the year, 1999.

¶17

The petitioners after joining the respondentsState were requesting the respondents to count their training period w.e.f. 1996 to 1998, as duty period. When no action was taken by the respondents-State, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of writ petitions, which were taken up and decided on 31.03.2010 and 13.07.2010 respectively, directing respondent No.1 to look into the grievances of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law treating the writ petitions as representations. Respondent No.1 was further directed to decide the claim within three months on the date of production of copy of the judgment along with copy of petition.

¶18

3

¶19

2026:HHC:12488

¶20

Respondent No.1 after receipt of copy of the order, considered the representations of the petitioners and rejected their claim by holding that they are wrongly interpreting the instructions of Finance Department dated 19.02.1991. The instructions only say that the benefit of increments shall be admissible to those employees, who have undergone training during their service period, whereas, the petitioners had undergone training prior to their appointment. Further the JBT course is a professional qualification, required for the post of JBT and this course is prerequisite professional qualification in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (for short R&P Rules) of JBTs. A person is selected as JBT only when he has successfully completed the required training.

¶21

The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the said order of rejection of their claim vide order dated 26.07.2010 have approached this Court by way of instant petition. It has been averred in the petition that the Government of India had issued instructions and various orders, wherein it has been held that training period will be counted for the purpose of increments in the cases of those direct recruits, who are compulsory required to undergo training before

¶22

4

¶23

2026:HHC:12488

¶24

taking a Government employment. However, in the case of the petitioners, though they had executed the bond, the said period of training has not been counted and respondent No.1 has wrongly rejected their claim.

¶25

The respondents-State filed reply to the petition and averred that the petitioners are misinterpreting the instructions of Finance Department issued on 19.02.1991, which was cited in their representations, because as per these instructions, the benefit of increments shall be admissible to those employees, who have undergone training during their service period, whereas, the petitioners have undergone training prior to their appointment. Moreover, JBT course is a professional qualification required for the post of JBT and this course is prerequisite professional qualification in the R&P Rules of JBTs. A person is selected as JBT only when he/she has successfully completed the required training. Further a perusal of Annexure P-5, appended with the petition reveals that the petitioners were appointed as JBT Teachers on the basis of the interview held on 10.05.1999, conducted by the Recruitment Committee constituted for the purpose. The petitioners are entitled to any increments/financial benefits

¶26

5

¶27

2026:HHC:12488

¶28

after their joining as JBT teacher on the basis of the appointment orders issued to them.

¶29

The petitioners have not filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents-State, controverting the pleas taken therein.

¶30

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully.

¶31

It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that before offering the appointment to a person to the post of JBT, he has to undergo training of two years, as per the R&P Rules. Further, the petitioners have been offered the appointments after conducting the interviews. Once the petitioners have been offered the appointment to the post of JBT after conducting the interviews, the claim raised by them that the period of training be counted for the purpose of increments, is totally untenable in law inasmuch as it is settled law that the person is to be granted the service benefits from the date of joining the Department. Respondent No.1, while rejecting the claim has rightly come to the conclusion that the benefit of increments shall be admissible only to those employees who have undergone training during their service period. Since the petitioners

¶32

6

¶33

2026:HHC:12488

¶34

have been offered the appointment only after imparting the training, which is pre-requisite qualification to hold the post of JBT, the claim set forth by them to count the period of training is without any basis and respondent No.1 while considering their claim has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to the said relief.

¶35

So far as the plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Government of India had issued instructions and various orders, that the training period will be counted for the purpose of increments, in the cases of those direct recruits, who are compulsory required to undergo training before taking a Government employment is concerned, that is not the case at hand, for the reason that here the petitioners have not undergone for training after their selection to the post of JBT. They were selected only for imparting the training of JBT and after completion of training, they were awarded the certificates. Thereafter, the interviews were conducted by the Recruitment Committee on 10.05.1999 and on the recommendations of the Recruitment Committee, they were offered the appointments, which fact has not been disputed by the petitioners, since no rejoinder has been filed. Respondent

¶36

7

¶37

2026:HHC:12488

¶38

No.1 has rightly come to the conclusion that the period of training cannot be counted for granting increments and there is no error in the said order. Since the order under challenge neither suffers from any illegality nor infirmity, the writ petition is devoid of any merits and deserves rejection.

¶39

Consequently, the present writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, also stand

¶40

disposed of.

¶41

18th April , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge

Ashwani Kumar and others v. State of Hp and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwani Kumar and others v. State of Hp and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sansar Chand and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Dinesh Vs State of Hp

Satya Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Paras Ram Vs Hpseb Ltd.

Onkar Singh Vs State of Hp

Hem Raj and Ors. Vs State of H.P